New Copyright Law...Interesting(kindarelated)

[FunkyMF]

http://www.livedaily.com/archive/2000/2k01/wk3/AmendmentToCopyrightActCo.html

Amendment To Copyright Act Could Mean That Artists Will Never Own
Their Recordings

Labels could treat sound recordings as ''works for hire.''

By Mark Lewis

A deeply controversial amendment to the 1976 Copyright Act--added
without
congressional debate or input from artists--now allows record
companies to treat
musicians’ recordings as “works for hire.” Tacked onto an omnibus
appropriations bill by
a congressional staffer and signed into law by President Bill Clinton
on Nov. 29, the new
amendment could prevent artists from reclaiming the rights to their
work after 35 years,
the current legal waiting period.

The new categorization of sound recordings
as “works for
hire” will give record companies firm legal
ground to claim
that an artist’s album is a “compilation” or
“collected work,” a
category that has been used in the past only
for large
collaborative efforts such as movies and
anthologies of
writings.

By treating the artist as a person hired to
make the
recording, the record company would own the
recordings
and have the right to control their
distribution and use them
indefinitely. For artists, this radical
change would mean that
they are, in fact, selling the rights to
their work forever, rather
than allowing a record company to use it for
a limited period
of time to market, distribute and earn
profits from it.

Billboard reported that the change in the
law was requested
by the Recording Industry Association of
America, a record
industry group that defends the interests of
the major record
labels. RIAA president Hilary Rosen claimed
that the
amendment merely makes a recording
“eligible” for
work-for-hire status, and the artist and label must still sign a
contract that either explicitly
makes the recording a work-for-hire or leaves rights with the artist.

Rosen also stated that the amendment is simply a provision that
legally nails down the
recording industry’s view that the artist is just one of many
participants, along with backup
musicians, arrangers and engineers, who jointly create an album. In
the RIAA’s eyes, if the
album is not treated as a collective work, then record labels cannot
easily determine who
owns the rights. Calling an album a collective work allows them to
simplify the situation,
they say. It would also allow them to assume ownership of the music.

But most artists have their supporting musicians and other studio
personnel sign legal
agreements stating that they do not have ownership rights to the
final musical product.
The purpose of doing that is to ensure that the primary artists have
the sole rights to the
work.

Moreover, many artists write and record their albums on their own,
without the involvement
of a record company’s studio (if it has one), which means that there
are not numerous
collaborators. And artists, their agents and their lawyers almost
universally agree that the
major creative individual or band behind an album is the music’s
author. (Composers,
songwriters and music publishing companies must be paid if their
material is used on a
different performer’s album.)

If the new amendment stands up against anticipated legal battles and
no further action is
recommended in House Intellectual Property Subcommittee hearings
(which have not yet
been scheduled), artists may never be able to own their music. Under
the current
copyright law, artists who signed contracts with record companies
after Jan. 1, 1978 have
the right to get the music back after 35 years, a “rights-reversion”
period that artists can
take advantage of beginning in 2013. At that time, an artist could
sell a recording back to
the record company, or take it elsewhere for more money or better
distribution, for
example.

Artists interviewed by Billboard, including Don Henley, James Taylor,
Mary Chapin
Carpenter and Coolio, were unanimous in expressing their concern over
the “new rules of
the game.” Several said they would be willing to join a guild or hire
a Washington lobby to
watch out for their interests on Capitol Hill.

There are two existing unions that represent some musicians--the
American Federation
of Television and Radio Artists and the American Federation of
Musicians--but the RIAA
and Congress did not consult them before adding the amendment.

Ron Stone, who represents Los Lobos, Ziggy Marley, Bonnie Raitt and
Tracy Chapman,
told Billboard, “I’ve been trying to organize some sort of guild with
the managers and the
artists, who usually wouldn’t join anything. But the essence is this:
Between the
consolidation of the record companies, radio, promoters in the
marketplace, the artist is
under siege here. This law erodes, once again, the artist’s position
in the industry.”

[aka HiRizeBear]

in my opinion prince was a musician for hire with WB, just as his bands were
musicians for hire with him.

karmaboomerang?

HiRize
http://members.aol.com/lionskin1/main.html

[Bill Clark]

>in my opinion prince was a musician for hire with WB, just as his bands were
>musicians for hire with him.

yeah i am sure that if Prince had the Masters he would not "share" them with
all his band mates

<html> The Rules Have Changed...
<a href="http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=hzs708 ">Get Paid to Surf
the Web! </a><html>

[MG]

Hummmm...........summer of 1978?

George-Williams Isaacs wrote:
>
> --
> "FunkyMF" <fun...@aol.comvoodoo> wrote in message
> news:20000124175858...@ng-fb1.aol.com...

>
> >Under the current
> > copyright law, artists who signed contracts with record companies
> > after Jan. 1, 1978 have
> > the right to get the music back after 35 years, a "rights-reversion"
> > period that artists can
> > take advantage of beginning in 2013.
>

> Wow. I did not know that. When did Prince sign?
>
> ----Edshugeo The GodMoor----
> -------- www.mp3.com/ejam ---------
> - www.mp3.com/psychovoyager -

[George-Williams Isaacs]

--
"FunkyMF" <fun...@aol.comvoodoo> wrote in message
news:20000124175858...@ng-fb1.aol.com...

>Under the current

> copyright law, artists who signed contracts with record companies
> after Jan. 1, 1978 have
> the right to get the music back after 35 years, a "rights-reversion"
> period that artists can
> take advantage of beginning in 2013.

Wow. I did not know that. When did Prince sign?

[BTYOFDAWN]

This is law if passed will signal an end of real artists working at record
labels and all that will be at record labels will be one hit wonders. I think
we will see alot of BIG artists who have been around and have the money, start
to leave their labels and possibly rerecord their work if they can. The one
comment I did hear about this law was from JonBonJovi who just got all his
master tapes back from polygram, basically he said what I said above that
artists will have to be on the lookout and know what they are getting into.
Basically Record labels dont care anymore about backing their artists its all
about Flava of the day, music sells today like CRACK sells to CRACKHEADS its
all the same stuff. Now WEA and EMI merged which means about 200 artists who
dont sell over 200,000 will get dropped. People say the 80's were horrible for
music, i beg to differ, the 90's were the worst for creativity, some good did
come out but much more bad.